Geoengineering - caught in the act?

Amongst all of the data and tools to use, another is to look up the winds aloft, at that time. The spreading of the contrails is indicative of the
mixing going on, due to normal atmospheric forces, such as winds, and horizontal wind shears. Also, the "spreading" is not just the original
contrails "thinning out" .... what you see are more cirrus being formed, due to the very presence of the contrails!

They, by just being there, act as triggers.....the air mass was already ripe for cirrus to form...it just took the passage of the airliners to provide
the stimulus.

Try to understand......Evenif some sort of "particulates" were being intentionally "sprayed"....there still has to be a physical
atmospheric mechanism to cause a spreading effect. There is simply no way there could be enough mass of "material" to "spray" and lead to that
much as observed. It HAS to be the water vapor that was already present, and was invisible, until it condensed out and formed the tiny ice particles
that comprise cirrus clouds.

See? This thread, your photos, prove nothing about "chemtrails". Since really...."chemtrails" simply do not exist in the first place; this is
known. However, the images are indicative of what is observed frequently, and well understood by many, of contrails.

I don't understand your comments about "never" having seen this before. When I lived just about in your area (well, in Northern Virgina) I saw it
frequently. But, I know how to interpret what I see, based on life experience.

Since these trails didn't cause it to rain and the sun wasn't out, we can eliminate SRM and cloud seeding right away. So, I have to wonder what their
purpose is. Are they designed to conceal something in the sky? Are they designed to drop particles into the soil and water?

Looking at the pictures I see the sun is the lowest in the first pictures the ones with the eariler times (like 8:35 and 8:41), and highest in the
later pictures (like 9:06)

The OP (by mistake maybe) got the pictures in the wrong order. What I see if you follow the pictures backwards, treating the last ones as actually the
first, you see a sky that is hazy and breaks up into fingers then into a clear night sky.

The contrails in the first pictures were being formed after all the hazy fingered clouds had already dissipated. (and not the other way around as the
OP suggests with the contrails first then the fingers)

The sun doesn't lie my friends..... so look at the pictures in reverse...

What are you smoking? That's the moon... and I was PURPOSEFULLY making the halos in the first photo with my camera setting. The second photo shows the
clear night sky. A camera shooting at night is goings to have that huge halo of light around the moon. I really don't want to get into camera function
as that is way off topic.

Like I said I was shooting in RAW, it stamps all the info.

You go from objective inquiry in one post which i enjoy responding to... to techniques of disinformation that I see around ATS which I hate responding
to and end up ignoring people who post like that.

Amongst all of the data and tools to use, another is to look up the winds aloft, at that time. The spreading of the contrails is indicative of the
mixing going on, due to normal atmospheric forces, such as winds, and horizontal wind shears. Also, the "spreading" is not just the original
contrails "thinning out" .... what you see are more cirrus being formed, due to the very presence of the contrails!

They, by just being there, act as triggers.....the air mass was already ripe for cirrus to form...it just took the passage of the airliners to provide
the stimulus.

Try to understand......Evenif some sort of "particulates" were being intentionally "sprayed"....there still has to be a physical
atmospheric mechanism to cause a spreading effect. There is simply no way there could be enough mass of "material" to "spray" and lead to that
much as observed. It HAS to be the water vapor that was already present, and was invisible, until it condensed out and formed the tiny ice particles
that comprise cirrus clouds.

See? This thread, your photos, prove nothing about "chemtrails". Since really...."chemtrails" simply do not exist in the first place; this is
known. However, the images are indicative of what is observed frequently, and well understood by many, of contrails.

I don't understand your comments about "never" having seen this before. When I lived just about in your area (well, in Northern Virgina) I saw it
frequently. But, I know how to interpret what I see, based on life experience.

You fail to factor in there were two sets of planes... one set making these and one set not. The set making them was not on the radar.

I have seen contrails form clouds, i do not deny this is possible if the conditions were right. The conditions were not right by the data I see coming
from NOAA. Also the planes on the radar behave according to what they should given the NOAA data.

I have seen contrails form clouds and haze, I have never seen this many aircraft fly over so quickly and so rapidly form these clouds. Look at the
pics... the heaviest part of this was 10 minutes and it is a different sky...

Sorry I didn't take constant pictures of it, my goal was to enjoy the beautiful night and make art pictures. I was taking pictures of other things,
but I watched this happen and took a lot of pictures of it.

You are looking at data for the wrong period and the wrong altitudes.
9:00 PM EST is 2:00 AM (March 8) UTC.

200mb represents an altitude of about 39,000 feet. That's pretty high for traffic in that area. 250mb is about 35,000 feet, a little more realistic.
Here's the RUC model output. Please note that this is not actual data, but a computer model. The model shows moisture moving into your area, if
a bit delayed. But remember, it's a computer forecast, not hard data.

Here is the water vapor imagery. It matches quite will with the contrail forecast and shows the moisture moving into your area.

All in all, it's not surprising that persistent contrails were seen to form from planes at a certain altitude. And that cloud cover increased as the
weather moved in.

You fail to factor in there were two sets of planes... one set making these and one set not.

That is simple.....this happens because they are at different altitudes.

Sorry but, I have to repeat this over and over again.

You see the flights, but you don't know their exact altitudes until (or if) you check on Flight Aware. If you had logged very carefully each and
every flight, and compared what you observed to the facts about each one, then you could begin to see a relationship and it will make better sense.

It is a video indicative of the tragic lack of education and experience that so many have, that they fall for this myth and hoax.....and now, every
"line in teh sky", to them< is a so-called "chemtrail".

Originally posted by Phage
You are looking at data for the wrong period and the wrong altitudes.
9:00 PM EST is 2:00 AM (March 8) UTC.

200mb represents an altitude of about 39,000 feet. That's pretty high for traffic in that area. 250mb is about 35,000 feet, a little more realistic.
Here's the RUC model output. Please note that this is not actual data, but a computer model. The model shows moisture moving into your area,
if a bit delayed. But remember, it's a computer forecast, not hard data.

Here is the water vapor imagery. It matches quite will with the contrail forecast and shows the moisture moving into your area.

All in all, it's not surprising that persistent contrails were seen to form from planes at a certain altitude. And that cloud cover increased as the
weather moved in.

edit on 3/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Ahh the phage arrives as I am about to log out and goto eat... so sorry, but even if you massage the data, the direction I was shooting is that clear
dark patch of all the maps Phage...

Your saying so does not change the clear facts... and I am using the recommended settings from the bottom of the page where that map comes from. I
posted the quote from it in my OP. YOU are the one manipulating data our of proportion here...

There was NO conditions for contrails.. and EVEN IF THER WERE... it does not explain the TWO SETS of planes... I'm sick of dealing with your
manipulative techniques from all the other threads we've been in. You arrive already doing them. It is sad people fall for your ... junk.

You fail to factor in there were two sets of planes... one set making these and one set not.

That is simple.....this happens because they are at different altitudes.

Sorry but, I have to repeat this over and over again.

You see the flights, but you don't know their exact altitudes until (or if) you check on Flight Aware. If you had logged very carefully each and
every flight, and compared what you observed to the facts about each one, then you could begin to see a relationship and it will make better sense.

Sorry no.

There were many many more planes in the sky... all at high altitude. If you want to argue they were military... that I can believe.

There was NO conditions for contrails.. and EVEN IF THER WERE... it does not explain the TWO SETS of planes

There were conditions for contrails. I showed them to you. You had a weather system moving in. Along with it contrail conditions moved in. That's the
way it works.

You used the contrail forecast for the wrong time and an extreme altitude. I used the right time and the right altitude (250mb).

Select a pressure value between 200 and 250 mb for the best estimate.

If you had been a bit more diligent with your data gathering by trying to determine the altitudes at which the planes were flying you may well have
found the reason for the "two sets". An altitude difference of less than 1,000 feet can make the difference between contrails forming or not.

That they were at high altitude is not in doubt. That is the only way to make the contrails.

But, you aren't being clear on the number. You say "many many"....how many? Specifically.

Recall that I counted at least 8 or 9 possibly candidates, just in that one Flight Aware screen grab. We really needed a video, of both the Flight
Aware info, and also the sky. But, 8 or 9 in a few minutes' time is not unusual.

Yes PB, that is what I said in the post above yours!
Why do you and Unicuss and firepilot (not here any more) and x keep repeating the same old, same old??
They do not listen, want to listen or are just trolls.
Why do you keep feeding them?
You lectured me and Al yesterday about not doing this.

Just ask them for the proof of the contents of the trails...that is all there is to it.

Really, I've star you guys every time for your diligence for a long time.
Class is over. Ask for the evidence.
We all know how cirrus clouds are formed and if they don't, GOOGLE it!!

How long did you try to instruct that idiot about HAARP and "chemtrails"??? Sound travels at the speed of light?
How much more time are you going to waste with useless instruction?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.